If you do a Wikipedia search on the phrase ‘Open to interpretation‘, you’ll notice that the phrase is commonly used when a concentration of nerds has been unable to agree upon whether a piece of Dr. Who or Star Trek fiction qualifies as ‘official canon’.
Whether this tells us more about those show’s fan-base than the quality of the writing is, well, open to interpretation… Was the writing so bad that the viewer can’t tell if it should be taken seriously? Or did they simply not like what they saw and so, seek to argue against its credibility?
It’s certainly a great way to encourage dialogue about your work.

It can be applied to anything, by anyone with an imagination. The end of the E.T. plot summary, for example, ends with “E.T. then picks up the flower pot Gertie gave him, walks into the spaceship, and takes off, leaving a rainbow in the sky…”
I could easily append; “It is left open to the viewer’s interpretation as to whether the ship subsequently crash-lands, prompting Caspar Weinberger, seeing this as an act of aggression, to mobilize a US military response to the alien threat, and launch an offensive against the planet Brodo Asogi…”
Hey, I’m allowed to dream aren’t I?

HOWEVER, I’m finding more and more that writers feel the need to explain every single little detail of the universes they’ve created. Rather than just let the audience experience it. They seek to fill in all the blanks so that there is no interpretation – at all – to their intention.
The original Fallout games, for example, created an engaging and intriguing world for us to experience. We got it! Yet the front page of the Fallout 3 manual explains to us exactly why the world of the future is stuck in the 50’s…
“Imagine if, after World War II, the timeline had split. Our world forked into one branch, the Fallout universe the other. In that other branch, technology progressed at a much more impressive rate, while American society remained locked in the cultural norms of the 1950’s. It was an idyllic “world of tomorrow,” filled with servant robots, beehive hairdos, and fusion-powered cars. And then in the year 2077, at the climax of a long-running war with China, it all went to hell in a globe-shattering nuclear war.”
THERE! Job done. No need to use any imagination whatsoever!

Personally, I like the less is more approach. We don’t know why Bowser wants the princess, or what’s in it for Mario if he rescues her. We don’t need to know what’s in the suitcase in Ronin in order to enjoy the movie. We don’t need to know what caused the zombie infection of Left 4 Dead. Just put us in the world, dammit! If the picture is captivating enough, we won’t be worrying about the ‘missing pieces’ of the puzzle but simply enjoying the ride.
-Stew (@chicknstu)










The Force. There’s something that was quite happy to be left alone. But no, they had to spoil the magic.
And ironically, in trying to explain it, just raised even bigger questions.
George Lucas deliberately doesn’t explain a lot of background and culture in the original trilogy and it makes those films much more interesting.
This is also why I love the horror genre so much. It’s the most delicate genre, because it hinges on how much you give away to the viewer.
Too much, and they aren’t scared, because they’ve seen all there is to be scared of. Too little, and they’re just confused. It requires just enough information to be given that they can fill in the blanks themselves. Blair Witch, Exorsist, and the Shining – Great examples.
@Stew
I totally agree with your view of the horror genre. What helps to make an excellent environment on zombie movies, is the fact that you don’t know how or where it all started! For this, I recommend reading the “Walking Dead” by Robert Kirkman… It has so many twists and turns that it’s sure to make you too hyped up to switch to another book!
@Gavin:
True… The midichlorian stuff was just dumb… No matter how plausible it would seem… In the original trilogy, the Jedi had a much more mystical aura around them (and being the nice little buddhist I am, that appealed a lot to me).
With the new trilogy… well… They might have made just X-Men with lightsabers.
Actually, Lucas has lost the skill to write in a long time, to a galaxy far far away… He came to specialize in visual storytelling, instead of the written word or concept – I hope so at least, ‘coz there are no other sane ways to justify CG gophers in Indiana Jones IV.
@Stew
How come you were telling me how much you hated the “open to interpretation” plot of Bioshock then? Your exact words were along the lines of “The plot has loads of holes in it” – well, do you want these holes filled in or not man!
Hmmm… I thought that Bioshock’s plot was pretty auto-conclusive around the end :S
Yeah, a standard set set-up (apocalypse), a cheap and bizarre twist that made almost no sense, and a fight with a big guy that’s OD’d on plasmids.
Expertly crafted atmosphere, but hardly a plot.
lol…
…Ok ok ok… Quit kicking the blind guys